Yourman v. Dinkins, 84 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Yourman v. Dinkins, 84 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Auer v. Robbins (scotus, 1997-02-19) · Strongest negative: Hoffmann v. Sbarro, Inc. (nysd, 1997-10-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Hoffmann v. Sbarro, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1997 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Yourman v. Dinkins, 826 F.Supp. 736 (S.D.N.Y.1993), aff'd, 84 F.3d 655 (2d Cir.1996), vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Auer v. Robbins
SCOTUS · 1997 · confidence medium
Other Circuits have rejected the requirement, Yourman v. Dinkins, 84 F. 3d 655, 656 (CA2 1996), cert. pending, No. 96-152; Carpenter v. Denver, supra, at 359-360 ; Bankston v. Illinois, supra, at 1253 ; Kinney v. District of Columbia, 994 F. 2d 6, 10-11 (CADC 1993); Abshire v. County of Kern, 908 F. 2d 483, 486-488 (CA9 1990), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 1068 (1991); or else have imposed a requirement of actual deductions only in the face of vagueness or ambiguity in the governing policy, Michigan Assn. of Governmental Employees v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 992 F. 2d 82, 86 (CA6 1993). *461 T…
discussed Cited "see" Schwartz v. City of New York
S.D.N.Y. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yourman v. Dinkins, 826 F. Supp. 736, 748 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), decision supplemented, 865 F. Supp. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), and aff’d, 84 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 1996), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds sub nom.
discussed Cited "see" Dacar v. Saybolt, L.P.
5th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yourman v. Dinkins , 865 F.Supp. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff'd , 84 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 1996), vacated on other grounds , 519 U.S. 1145 , 117 S.Ct. 1078 , 137 L.Ed.2d 213 (1997) ; Ayers v. SGS Control Services, Inc. , No. 03 Civ. 9077 RMB, 2007 WL 646326 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Joseph Dacar v. Saybolt L.P.
5th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yourman v. Dinkins , 865 F.Supp. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff'd , 84 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 1996), vacated on other grounds , 519 U.S. 1145 , 117 S.Ct. 1078 , 137 L.Ed.2d 213 (1997) ; Ayers v. SGS Control Services, Inc. , No. 03 Civ. 9077 RMB, 2007 WL 646326 (S.D.N.Y.
cited Cited "see" Harold Yourman v. Rudolph Giuliani
2d Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yourman v. Dinkins, 84 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Yourman v. Giuliani
2d Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yourman v. Dinkins, 84 F.3d 655 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" DiGiore, Dennis v. Ryan, George
7th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yourman v. Dinkins, 84 F.3d 655 , 656 (2d Cir.1996); Bankston, 60 F.3d at 1253 ; Kinney v. District of Columbia, 994 F.2d 6, 11 (D.C.
discussed Cited "see" Dennis Digiore, Robert Dufkis, Ken Easterly, Joe Gabuzzi, William E. Johns v. George H. Ryan, Giacomo A. Pecoraro, and Tina Prose
7th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yourman v. Dinkins, 84 F.3d 655, 656 (2d Cir.1996); Bankston, 60 F.3d at 1253; Kinney v. District of Columbia, 994 F.2d 6, 11 (D.C.Cir.1993); Abshire v. County of Kern, 908 F.2d 483, 487 (9th Cir.1990). 7 .
discussed Cited "see" Aiken v. County of Hampton, SC
D.S.C. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
(Stipulation No. 11) (employees are entitled to be paid for up to 25 days of accrued leave upon leaving employment with Hampton County); see Yourman v. Dinkins, 826 F.Supp. 736, 738 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (acknowledging similar argument by plaintiffs), aff'd, 84 F.3d 655 (2d Cir.1996) and judgment vacated by Giuliani v. Yourman, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1078 , 137 L.Ed.2d 213 (1997).
discussed Cited "see" Carroll A. Stanley James O. Hanson Timothy T. Heskett Mark H. Wanta James Rogers Kevin E. Vierra Roberta A. Mulkins v. City of Tracy
9th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yourman v. Dinkins, 84 F.3d 655, 656 (2d Cir.1996); Carpenter v. City & County of Denver, 82 F.3d 353, 359-60 (10th Cir.1996); Kinney v. District of Columbia, 994 F.2d 6 , 11 & nn. 2, 4-5 (D.C.Cir.1993); Klein v. Rush-Presbyterian-St.
discussed Cited "see" Ahern v. County of Nassau
2d Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yourman, 84 F.3d at 656; Bankston v. Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249, 1253 (7th Cir.1995); Abshire v. County of Kern, 908 F.2d 483, 487 (9th Cir.1990); Carpenter v. City of Denver, 82 F.3d 353, 359 (10th Cir.1996), vacated, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 1078 , 137 L.Ed.2d 213 (1997); Kinney v. District of Columbia, 994 F.2d 6, 11 (D.C.Cir.1993) 5 The Eighth and Eleventh Circuits had held that actual docking was required to strip the employee of the executive status she would otherwise have had.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cooke v. General Dynamics Corp.
D. Conn. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Yourman v. Dinkins, 84 F.3d 655 (2d Cir.1996), petition for cert, filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3110 (U.S. Jul. 29, 1996) (No. 96-152); Reich v. Waldbaum, Inc., 52 F.3d at 40 ; Martin v. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 949 F.2d at 614 ; Michigan Ass’n of Governmental Employees v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 992 F.2d 82, 86 (6th Cir.1993); Bankston v. State of Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249 , 1253 (7th Cir.1995); Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256 , 1262 (9th Cir.1994); Abshire v. County of Kern, 908 F.2d 483 , 485 (9th Cir.1990); Spradling v. City of Tulsa, 95 F.3d 1492, 1500-01 (10th Cir.1996), petiti…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harold Yourman, Ralph Bishop, William H. Dworkin, Frederick Ewald, John L. Henderickson, Richard Krepela, Robert P. McCarthy Frank Meyer, Anthony Punzi, and Ronald L. Savitt, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Employees Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants
v.
David N. Dinkins, as Mayor of the City of New York, the New York City Housing Authority, the Board of Education of the City of New York, the City School District of the City of New York, and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
1772.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 31, 1996.
84 F.3d 655
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

84 F.3d 655

131 Lab.Cas. P 33,388, 3 Wage & Hour Cas.2d
(BNA) 524

Harold YOURMAN, Ralph Bishop, William H. Dworkin, Frederick
Ewald, John L. Henderickson, Richard Krepela, Robert P.
McCarthy, Frank Meyer, Anthony Punzi, and Ronald L. Savitt,
on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants,
v.
David N. DINKINS, as Mayor of the City of New York, the New
York City Housing Authority, the Board of Education of the
City of New York, the City School District of the City of
New York, and the New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

Nos. 1537, 1772, Dockets 95-7561, 95-7610XAP.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued May 1, 1996.
Decided May 31, 1996.

Appeal and cross-appeal from the May 12, 1995, judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Loretta A. Preska, Judge) determining that municipal employees are entitled to overtime pay.

Affirmed on the opinions of the District Court, Yourman v. Dinkins, 826 F.Supp. 736 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Yourman v. Dinkins, 865 F.Supp. 154 (S.D.N.Y.1994).

Timothy J. O'Shaughnessy, Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York City (Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel, Kristin M. Helmers, Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.

Edward M. Scher, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albany, N.Y. (Dennis C. Vacco, N.Y. State Atty. Gen., Victoria A. Graffeo, Peter H. Schiff, Office of the N.Y. State Atty. Gen., Albany, N.Y., on the brief), for amici curiae State of New York.

Joan Stern Kiok, New York City (Robert N. Felix, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants.

(James E. Doyle, Atty. Gen., Richard Briles Moriarty, Asst. Atty. Gen., Wisconsin Dept. of Justice, Madison, WI, submitted a brief, for amicus curiae State of Wisconsin).

(Arthur A. Hartinger, Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson, San Francisco, Cal., Louise H. Renne, Jonathan V. Holtzman, Darren W. Lee, City Atty.'s Office, San Francisco, Cal., submitted a brief, for amici curiae National League of Cities, et al.).

(Richard Schoolman, Brooklyn, N.Y., submitted a brief for amicus curiae New York City Transit Authority).

(Richard E. Casagrande, Lisa M. King, Albany, N.Y., submitted a brief, for amicus curiae New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO).

Before: NEWMAN, Chief Judge, FEINBERG and OAKES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

This appeal presents an issue that continues to divide the federal courts: how to apply in the public sector the Department of Labor's "salary basis" test, which is used to determine whether employees are managers and consequently not covered by the wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (1994). Some courts have ruled that the "salary basis" test is not met and employees are therefore protected by FLSA requirements where their pay is subject to reduction, even if no reduction has occurred. See Balgowan v. State of New Jersey, --- F.3d ---- (3d Cir.1996); Carpenter v. City & County of Denver, 82 F.3d 353, 359 (10th Cir.1996); Bankston v. State of Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249, 1253 (7th Cir.1995); Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1262 (9th Cir.1994); Kinney v. District of Columbia, 994 F.2d 6, 11 (D.C.Cir.1993); Michigan Association of Governmental Employees v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 992 F.2d 82, 86 (6th Cir.1993). Other courts have ruled that the "salary basis" test is met and employees are therefore exempt from FLSA protections as long as no deductions from compensation have been made. See Auer v. Robbins, 65 F.3d 702, 711 (8th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 64 U.S.L.W. 3428 (Dec. 7, 1995); McDonnell v. City of Omaha, 999 F.2d 293, 297 (8th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1188, 127 L.Ed.2d 538 (1994); Atlanta Professional Firefighters Union v. City of Atlanta, 920 F.2d 800, 805 (11th Cir.1991).

2

Appellants, the Mayor of New York City, the City's Board of Education, and its Health and Hospital Corp. (collectively, "the City"), appeal from the May 12, 1995, judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Loretta A. Preska, Judge), granting relief in the form of overtime pay under the FLSA to appellees, 435 of the City's supervisory employees ("the employees"). The City contends that the "salary basis" test, as applied to public employers, is irrational and violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-596 (1994), and also violates the Tenth Amendment. Alternatively, the City claims that its employees are not "subject to" reduction in pay, a criterion of the "salary basis" test, because (with one small exception), no reductions in pay have actually occurred. The City also claims a defense of good faith under the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 259 (1994). The employees cross-appeal from that portion of the judgment that denied them straight time pay for hours worked between 35 and 40 hours per week.

3

In a thorough and thoughtful opinion, the District Court ruled that the City's express policies concerning deductions for discipline, court attendance, and temporary military leave placed the employees outside the managerial exemption. The District Court also reasoned that the employees were "subject to" pay reductions based on the City's express policies, and therefore that the City was liable to all employees in that classification, whether or not the policies had actually been applied. Finally, the District Court rejected the City's contention that the "salary basis" test, as applied, violates the Tenth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, and also rejected the defense of good faith. Yourman v. Dinkins, 826 F.Supp. 736 (S.D.N.Y.1993).

4

On the employees' cross-appeal, the District Court found in a separate opinion that the employees were not entitled to "gap time" pay because the parties' employment agreement contemplated that the employees' salary would compensate for all hours worked up to the overtime threshold, with a minimum of 35 hours per week. Yourman v. Dinkins, 865 F.Supp. 154 (S.D.N.Y.1994).

5

Though the issues raised are important, no purpose would be served by adding further discussion to the dispute, already fully aired in the conflicting decisions cited above. We agree with the conclusions reached by Judge Preska in her comprehensive opinions, and leave the ultimate resolution of the statutory dispute to the Supreme Court or the Congress.

6

As to both the City's appeal and the employees' cross-appeal, we affirm on the opinions of the District Court.